Molecular analysis of restriction endonuclease EcoRII from Escherichia coli reveals precise regulation of its enzymatic activity by autoinhibition

Bacterial restriction endonuclease EcoRII requires two recognition sites to cleave DNA. Proteolysis of EcoRII revealed the existence of two stable domains, EcoRII-N and EcoRII-C. Reduction of the enzyme to its C-terminal domain, EcoRII-C, unleashed the enzyme activity; this truncated form no longer needed two recognition sites and cleaved DNA much more efficiently than EcoRII wild-type. The crystal structure of EcoRII showed that probably the N-terminal domain sterically occludes the catalytic site, thus apparently controlling the cleavage activity. Based on these data, EcoRII was the first restriction endonuclease for which an autoinhibition mechanism as regulatory strategy was proposed. In this study, we probed this assumption and searched for the inhibitory element that mediates autoinhibition. Here we show that repression of EcoRII-C is achieved by addition of the inhibitory domain EcoRII-N or by single soluble peptides thereof in trans . Moreover, we perturbed contacts between the N- and the C-terminal domain of EcoRII by site-directed mutagenesis and proved that β-strand B1 and α-helix H2 are essential for autoinhibition; deletion of either secondary structural element completely relieved EcoRII autoinhibition. This potent regulation principle that keeps EcoRII enzyme activity controlled might protect bacteria against suicidal restriction of rare unmodified recognition sites in the cellular genome.     

UvrD helicase, unlike Rep helicase, dismantles RecA nucleoprotein filaments in Escherichia coli

The roles of UvrD and Rep DNA helicases of Escherichia coli are not yet fully understood. In particular, the reason for rep uvrD double mutant lethality remains obscure. We reported earlier that mutations in recF, recO or recR genes suppress the lethality of uvrD rep, and proposed that an essential activity common to UvrD and Rep is either to participate in the removal of toxic recombination intermediates or to favour the proper progression of replication. Here, we show that UvrD, but not Rep, directly prevents homologous recombination in vivo. In addition to RecFOR, we provide evidence that RecA contributes to toxicity in the rep uvrD mutant. In vitro, UvrD dismantles the RecA nucleoprotein filament, while Rep has only a marginal activity. We conclude that UvrD and Rep do not share a common activity that is essential in vivo: while Rep appears to act at the replication stage, UvrD plays a role of RecA nucleoprotein filament remover. This activity of UvrD is similar to that of the yeast Srs2 helicase.     

EcoRII: a restriction enzyme evolving recombination functions?

The restriction endonuclease EcoRII requires the cooperative interaction with two copies of the sequence 5'CCWGG for DNA cleavage. We found by limited proteolysis that EcoRII has a two-domain structure that enables this particular mode of protein-DNA interaction. The C-terminal domain is a new restriction endonuclease, EcoRII-C. In contrast to the wild-type enzyme, EcoRII-C cleaves DNA specifically at single 5'CCWGG sites. Moreover, substrates containing two or more cooperative 5'CCWGG sites are cleaved much more efficiently by EcoRII-C than by EcoRII. The N-terminal domain binds DNA specifically and attenuates the activity of EcoRII by making the enzyme dependent on a second 5'CCWGG site. Therefore, we suggest that a precursor EcoRII endonuclease acquired an additional DNA-binding domain to enable the interaction with two 5'CCWGG sites. The current EcoRII molecule could be an evolutionary intermediate between a site-specific endonuclease and a protein that functions specifically with two DNA sites such as recombinases and transposases. The combination of these functions may enable EcoRII to accomplish its own propagation similarly to transposons.     

Regulation of EcoRII methyltransferase: effect of mutations on gene expression and in vitro binding to the promoter region.

EcoRII Methyltransferase (M.EcoRII) which methylates the second C in the sequence CCWGG (W = A/T) is autogenously regulated by binding to the 5' regulatory region of its gene. DNase I footprinting experiments demonstrated that purified M.EcoRII protected a 47-49 bp region of DNA immediately upstream of the ecoRIIM coding region. We have studied this interaction with mutants of the enzyme, in vitro by DNA binding and in vivo by investigating the repression in trans of expression of beta-galactosidase from an ecoRIIM-lacZ operon fusion. Two catalytically active mutants failed to repress expression of the fusion whereas catalytically inactive mutants had repressor activity. However, with one of the catalytically inactive mutants, C186S, in which the catalytic Cys was replaced with Ser, and which bound unmethylated CCWGG sequences, repression could only be demonstrated when those sequences in cellular DNA were methylated by supplying a cloned dcm gene in trans. In vitro binding of the DNA fragment containing the ecoRIIM regulatory region was detected only with the mutants that showed repressor activity, including C186S. Results indicate that down-regulation of the gene in vivo and binding to the promoter in vitro are not dependent on the catalytic properties of M.EcoRII. Mobility shift experiments with C186S also revealed that it could bind either the promoter or unmethylated CCWGG sites, but not both. We conclude that the concentration of unmethylated CCWGG sites controls expression from the ecoRIIM promoter.     

RecFOR function is required for DNA repair and recombination in a RecA loading-deficient recB mutant of Escherichia coli

The RecA loading activity of the RecBCD enzyme, together with its helicase and 5' --> 3' exonuclease activities, is essential for recombination in Escherichia coli. One particular mutant in the nuclease catalytic center of RecB, i.e., recB1080, produces an enzyme that does not have nuclease activity and is unable to load RecA protein onto single-stranded DNA. There are, however, previously published contradictory data on the recombination proficiency of this mutant. In a recF(-) background the recB1080 mutant is recombination deficient, whereas in a recF(+) genetic background it is recombination proficient. A possible explanation for these contrasting phenotypes may be that the RecFOR system promotes RecA-single-strand DNA filament formation and replaces the RecA loading defect of the RecB1080CD enzyme. We tested this hypothesis by using three in vivo assays. We compared the recombination proficiencies of recB1080, recO, recR, and recF single mutants and recB1080 recO, recB1080 recR, and recB1080 recF double mutants. We show that RecFOR functions rescue the repair and recombination deficiency of the recB1080 mutant and that RecA loading is independent of RecFOR in the recB1080 recD double mutant where this activity is provided by the RecB1080C(D(-)) enzyme. According to our results as well as previous data, three essential activities for the initiation of recombination in the recB1080 mutant are provided by different proteins, i.e., helicase activity by RecB1080CD, 5' --> 3' exonuclease by RecJ- and RecA-single-stranded DNA filament formation by RecFOR.     

Influence of recA mutations on gyrA dependent quinolone resistance.

We examined, in Escherichia coli, the influence of recA mutant alleles on the level of quinolone resistance promoted by mutations in the gyrA gene. We found that the recA142 mutation, abolishing all the activities of RecA protein, greatly reduced the level of resistance to the quinolone ciprofloxacin, whereas the recA430 allele affecting the SOS inducing ability of RecA, reduced ciprofloxacin resistance to a lesser extent. The recA142 mutation did not cause enhancement of ciprofloxacin induced DNA breakage in gyrA mutants, indicating that the stabilization of DNA-gyrase complexes by the quinolone is not influenced by a RecA mutant protein. We suggest that RecA protein plays a role in the repair of quinolone damage, principally through a recombinational mechanism and, to a lesser degree, through the induction of the SOS response.     

DNA helicase activity of PcrA is not required for the displacement of RecA protein from DNA or inhibition of RecA-mediated strand exchange

PcrA is a conserved DNA helicase present in all gram-positive bacteria. Bacteria lacking PcrA show high levels of recombination. Lethality induced by PcrA depletion can be overcome by suppressor mutations in the recombination genes recFOR. RecFOR proteins load RecA onto single-stranded DNA during recombination. Here we test whether an essential function of PcrA is to interfere with RecA-mediated DNA recombination in vitro. We demonstrate that PcrA can inhibit the RecA-mediated DNA strand exchange reaction in vitro. Furthermore, PcrA displaced RecA from RecA nucleoprotein filaments. Interestingly, helicase mutants of PcrA also displaced RecA from DNA and inhibited RecA-mediated DNA strand exchange. Employing a novel single-pair fluorescence resonance energy transfer-based assay, we demonstrate a lengthening of double-stranded DNA upon polymerization of RecA and show that PcrA and its helicase mutants can reverse this process. Our results show that the displacement of RecA from DNA by PcrA is not dependent on its translocase activity. Further, our results show that the helicase activity of PcrA, although not essential, might play a facilitatory role in the RecA displacement reaction.     

RecBCD- RecFOR-independent pathway of homologous recombination in Escherichia coli

The RecA protein is a key bacterial recombination enzyme that catalyzes pairing and strand exchange between homologous DNA duplexes. In Escherichia coli, RecA protein assembly on DNA is mediated either by the RecBCD or RecFOR protein complexes. Correspondingly, two recombination pathways, RecBCD and RecF (or RecFOR), are distinguished in E. coli. Inactivation of both pathways in recB(CD) recF(OR) mutants results in severe recombination deficiency. Here we describe a novel, RecBCD- RecFOR-independent (RecBFI) recombination pathway that is active in ΔrecBCD sbcB15 sbcC(D) ΔrecF(OR) mutants of E. coli. In transductional crosses, these mutants show only four-fold decrease of recombination frequency relative to the wild-type strain. At the same time they recombine 40- to 90-fold better than their sbcB⁺ sbcC⁺ and ΔsbcB sbcC counterparts. The RecBFI pathway strongly depends on recA, recJ and recQ gene functions, and moderately depends on recG and lexA functions. Inactivation of dinI, helD, recX, recN, radA, ruvABC and uvrD genes has a slight effect on RecBFI recombination. After exposure to UV and gamma irradiation, the ΔrecBCD sbcB15 sbcC ΔrecF mutants show moderately increased DNA repair proficiency relative to their sbcB⁺ sbcC⁺ and ΔsbcB sbcC counterparts. However, introduction of recA730 allele (encoding RecA protein with enhanced DNA binding properties) completely restores repair proficiency to ΔrecBCD sbcB15 sbcC ΔrecF mutants, but not to their sbcB⁺ sbcC⁺ and ΔsbcB sbcC derivatives. Fluorescence microscopy with UV-irradiated recA-gfp fusion mutants suggests that the kinetics of RecA filament formation might be slowed down in the RecBFI pathway. Inactivation of 3′-5′ exonucleases ExoVII, ExoIX and ExoX cannot activate the RecBFI pathway in ΔrecBCD ΔsbcB sbcC ΔrecF mutants. Taken together, our results show that the product of the sbcB15 allele is crucial for RecBFI pathway. Besides protecting 3′ overhangs, SbcB15 protein might play an additional, more active role in formation of the RecA filament.     

Essential bacterial helicases that counteract the toxicity of recombination proteins

PcrA, Rep and UvrD are three closely related bacterial helicases with a DExx signature. PcrA is encoded by Gram-positive bacteria and is essential for cell growth. Rep and UvrD are encoded by Gram-negative bacteria, and mutants lacking both helicases are also not viable. To understand the non-viability of the helicase mutants, we characterized spontaneous extragenic suppressors of a Bacillus subtilis pcrA null mutation. Here we report that one of these suppressors maps in recF and that previously isolated mutations in B.subtilis recF, recL, recO and recR, which belong to the same complementation group, all suppress the lethality of a pcrA mutation. Similarly, recF, recO or recR mutations suppress the lethality of the Escherichia coli rep uvrD double mutant. We conclude that RecFOR proteins are toxic in cells devoid of PcrA in Gram-positive bacteria, or Rep and UvrD in Gram-negative bacteria, and propose that the RecFOR proteins interfere with an essential cellular process, possibly replication, when DExx helicases PcrA, or Rep and UvrD are absent.     

RecFOR Is Not Required for Pneumococcal Transformation but Together with XerS for Resolution of Chromosome Dimers Frequently Formed in the Process

Homologous recombination (HR) is required for both genome maintenance and generation of diversity in eukaryotes and prokaryotes. This process initiates from single-stranded (ss) DNA and is driven by a universal recombinase, which promotes strand exchange between homologous sequences. The bacterial recombinase, RecA, is loaded onto ssDNA by recombinase loaders, RecBCD and RecFOR for genome maintenance. DprA was recently proposed as a third loader dedicated to genetic transformation. Here we assessed the role of RecFOR in transformation of the human pathogen Streptococcus pneumoniae. We firstly established that RecFOR proteins are not required for plasmid transformation, strongly suggesting that DprA ensures annealing of plasmid single-strands internalized in the process. We then observed no reduction in chromosomal transformation using a PCR fragment as donor, contrasting with the 10,000-fold drop in dprA ^- cells and demonstrating that RecFOR play no role in transformation. However, a ∼1.45-fold drop in transformation was observed with total chromosomal DNA in recFOR mutants. To account for this limited deficit, we hypothesized that transformation with chromosomal DNA stimulated unexpectedly high frequency (>30% of cells) formation of chromosome dimers as an intermediate in the generation of tandem duplications, and that RecFOR were crucial for dimer resolution. We validated this hypothesis, showing that the site-specific recombinase XerS was also crucial for dimer resolution. An even higher frequency of dimer formation (>80% of cells) was promoted by interspecies transformation with Streptococcus mitis chromosomal DNA, which contains numerous inversions compared to pneumococcal chromosome, each potentially promoting dimerization. In the absence of RecFOR and XerS, dimers persist, as confirmed by DAPI staining, and can limit the efficiency of transformation, since resulting in loss of transformant chromosome. These findings strengthen the view that different HR machineries exist for genome maintenance and transformation in pneumococci. These observations presumably apply to most naturally transformable species.     

Genetic Requirements for High Constitutive SOS Expression in recA730 Mutants of Escherichia coli

The RecA protein in its functional state is in complex with single-stranded DNA, i.e., in the form of a RecA filament. In SOS induction, the RecA filament functions as a coprotease, enabling the autodigestion of the LexA repressor. The RecA filament can be formed by different mechanisms, but all of them require three enzymatic activities essential for the processing of DNA double-stranded ends. These are helicase, 5′–3′ exonuclease, and RecA loading onto single-stranded DNA (ssDNA). In some mutants, the SOS response can be expressed constitutively during the process of normal DNA metabolism. The RecA730 mutant protein is able to form the RecA filament without the help of RecBCD and RecFOR mediators since it better competes with the single-strand binding (SSB) protein for ssDNA. As a consequence, the recA730 mutants show high constitutive SOS expression. In the study described in this paper, we studied the genetic requirements for constitutive SOS expression in recA730 mutants. Using a β-galactosidase assay, we showed that the constitutive SOS response in recA730 mutants exhibits different requirements in different backgrounds. In a wild-type background, the constitutive SOS response is partially dependent on RecBCD function. In a recB1080 background (the recB1080 mutation retains only helicase), constitutive SOS expression is partially dependent on RecBCD helicase function and is strongly dependent on RecJ nuclease. Finally, in a recB-null background, the constitutive SOS expression of the recA730 mutant is dependent on the RecJ nuclease. Our results emphasize the importance of the 5′–3′ exonuclease for high constitutive SOS expression in recA730 mutants and show that RecBCD function can further enhance the excellent intrinsic abilities of the RecA730 protein in vivo.     

Maintaining replication fork integrity in UV-irradiated Escherichia coli cells

In dividing cells, the stalling of replication fork complexes by impediments to DNA unwinding or by template imperfections that block synthesis by the polymerase subunits is a serious threat to genomic integrity and cell viability. What happens to stalled forks depends on the nature of the offending obstacle. In UV-irradiated Escherichia coli cells DNA synthesis is delayed for a considerable period, during which forks undergo extensive processing before replication can resume. Thus, restart depends on factors needed to load the replicative helicase, indicating that the replisome may have dissociated. It also requires the RecFOR proteins, which are known to load RecA recombinase on single-stranded DNA, implying that template strands are exposed. To gain a further understanding of how UV irradiation affects replication and how replication resumes after a block, we used fluorescence microscopy and BrdU or radioisotope labelling to examine chromosome replication and cell cycle progression. Our studies confirm that RecFOR promote efficient reactivation of stalled forks and demonstrate that they are also needed for productive replication initiated at the origin, or triggered elsewhere by damage to the DNA. Although delayed, all modes of replication do recover in the absence of these proteins, but nascent DNA strands are degraded more extensively by RecJ exonuclease. However, these strands are also degraded in the presence of RecFOR when restart is blocked by other means, indicating that RecA loading is not sufficient to stabilise and protect the fork. This is consistent with the idea that RecA actively promotes restart. Thus, in contrast to eukaryotic cells, there may be no factor in bacterial cells acting specifically to stabilise stalled forks. Instead, nascent strands may be protected by the simple expedient of promoting restart. We also report that the efficiency of fork reactivation is not affected in polB mutants.     

RecFOR Proteins Target RecA Protein to a DNA Gap with Either DNA or RNA at the 5′ Terminus: IMPLICATION FOR REPAIR OF STALLED REPLICATION FORKS*

The repair of single-stranded gaps in duplex DNA by homologous recombination requires the proteins of the RecF pathway. The assembly of RecA protein onto gapped DNA (gDNA) that is complexed with the single-stranded DNA-binding protein is accelerated by the RecF, RecO, and RecR (RecFOR) proteins. Here, we show the RecFOR proteins specifically target RecA protein to gDNA even in the presence of a thousand-fold excess of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA). The binding constant of RecF protein, in the presence of the RecOR proteins, to the junction of ssDNA and dsDNA within a gap is 1–2 nm, suggesting that a few RecF molecules in the cell are sufficient to recognize gDNA. We also found that the nucleation of a RecA filament on gDNA in the presence of the RecFOR proteins occurs at a faster rate than filament elongation, resulting in a RecA nucleoprotein filament on ssDNA for 1000–2000 nucleotides downstream (5′ → 3′) of the junction with duplex DNA. Thus, RecA loading by RecFOR is localized to a region close to a junction. RecFOR proteins also recognize RNA at the 5′-end of an RNA-DNA junction within an ssDNA gap, which is compatible with their role in the repair of lagging strand gaps at stalled replication forks.     

RecA and RadA proteins of Brucella abortus do not perform overlapping protective DNA repair functions following oxidative burst

Very little is known about the role of DNA repair networks in Brucella abortus and its role in pathogenesis. We investigated the roles of RecA protein, DNA repair, and SOS regulation in B. abortus. While recA mutants in most bacterial species are hypersensitive to UV damage, surprisingly a B. abortus recA null mutant conferred only modest sensitivity. We considered the presence of a second RecA protein to account for this modest UV sensitivity. Analyses of the Brucella spp. genomes and our molecular studies documented the presence of only one recA gene, suggesting a RecA-independent repair process. Searches of the available Brucella genomes revealed some homology between RecA and RadA, a protein implicated in E. coli DNA repair. We considered the possibility that B. abortus RadA might be compensating for the loss of RecA by promoting similar repair activities. We present functional analyses that demonstrated that B. abortus RadA complements a radA defect in E. coli but could not act in place of the B. abortus RecA. We show that RecA but not RadA was required for survival in macrophages. We also discovered that recA was expressed at high constitutive levels, due to constitutive LexA cleavage by RecA, with little induction following DNA damage. Higher basal levels of RecA and its SOS-regulated gene products might protect against DNA damage experienced following the oxidative burst within macrophages.     

Genetic evidence for the requirement of RecA loading activity in SOS induction after UV irradiation in Escherichia coli

The SOS response in Escherichia coli results in the coordinately induced expression of more than 40 genes which occurs when cells are treated with DNA-damaging agents. This response is dependent on RecA (coprotease), LexA (repressor), and the presence of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA). A prerequisite for SOS induction is the formation of a RecA-ssDNA filament. Depending on the DNA substrate, the RecA-ssDNA filament is produced by either RecBCD, RecFOR, or a hybrid recombination mechanism with specific enzyme activities, including helicase, exonuclease, and RecA loading. In this study we examined the role of RecA loading activity in SOS induction after UV irradiation. We performed a genetic analysis of SOS induction in strains with a mutation which eliminates RecA loading activity in the RecBCD enzyme (recB1080 allele). We found that RecA loading activity is essential for SOS induction. In the recB1080 mutant RecQ helicase is not important, whereas RecJ nuclease slightly decreases SOS induction after UV irradiation. In addition, we found that the recB1080 mutant exhibited constitutive expression of the SOS regulon. Surprisingly, this constitutive SOS expression was dependent on the RecJ protein but not on RecFOR, implying that there is a different mechanism of RecA loading for constitutive SOS expression.     

Translocation and Stability of Replicative DNA Helicases upon Encountering DNA-Protein Cross-links

DNA-protein cross-links (DPCs) are formed when cells are exposed to various DNA-damaging agents. Because DPCs are extremely large, steric hindrance conferred by DPCs is likely to affect many aspects of DNA transactions. In DNA replication, DPCs are first encountered by the replicative helicase that moves at the head of the replisome. However, little is known about how replicative helicases respond to covalently immobilized protein roadblocks. In the present study we elucidated the effect of DPCs on the DNA unwinding reaction of hexameric replicative helicases in vitro using defined DPC substrates. DPCs on the translocating strand but not on the nontranslocating strand impeded the progression of the helicases including the phage T7 gene 4 protein, simian virus 40 large T antigen, Escherichia coli DnaB protein, and human minichromosome maintenance Mcm467 subcomplex. The impediment varied with the size of the cross-linked proteins, with a threshold size for clearance of 5.0–14.1 kDa. These results indicate that the central channel of the dynamically translocating hexameric ring helicases can accommodate only small proteins and that all of the helicases tested use the steric exclusion mechanism to unwind duplex DNA. These results further suggest that DPCs on the translocating and nontranslocating strands constitute helicase and polymerase blocks, respectively. The helicases stalled by DPC had limited stability and dissociated from DNA with a half-life of 15–36 min. The implications of the results are discussed in relation to the distinct stabilities of replisomes that encounter tight but reversible DNA-protein complexes and irreversible DPC roadblocks.     

UvrD and UvrD252 counteract RecQ, RecJ, and RecFOR in a rep mutant of Escherichia coli

Rep and UvrD are two related Escherichia coli helicases, and inactivating both is lethal. Based on the observation that the synthetic lethality of rep and uvrD inactivation is suppressed in the absence of the recombination presynaptic proteins RecF, RecO, or RecR, it was proposed that UvrD is essential in the rep mutant to counteract a deleterious RecFOR-dependent RecA binding. We show here that the synthetic lethality of rep and uvrD mutations is also suppressed by recQ and recJ inactivation but not by rarA inactivation. Furthermore, it is independent of the action of UvrD in nucleotide excision repair and mismatch repair. These observations support the idea that UvrD counteracts a deleterious RecA binding to forks blocked in the rep mutant. An ATPase-deficient mutant of UvrD [uvrD(R284A)] is dominant negative in a rep mutant, but only in the presence of all RecQJFOR proteins, suggesting that the UvrD(R284A) mutant protein is deleterious when it counteracts one of these proteins. In contrast, the uvrD252 mutant (G30D), which exhibits a strongly decreased ATPase activity, is viable in a rep mutant, where it allows replication fork reversal. We conclude that the residual ATPase activity of UvrD252 prevents a negative effect on the viability of the rep mutant and allows UvrD to counteract the action of RecQ, RecJ, and RecFOR at forks blocked in the rep mutant. Models for the action of UvrD at blocked forks are proposed.